Ayo Olukotun
We have to encourage indigenous practitioners to be part of our larger academic community, not just studying what they produce; but creating a dialogue of respect and returning back to our community our own products for their use and validation. Toyin Falola. 19th February, 2016.
For journalists to perform their agenda setting role with respect to development and democracy in our country, they must always go behind the headlines and the ephemeral – even if convulsive conflicts of political actors – to tract evolving perspectives on issues pertaining to the Nigerian challenge. And what better way to do this than to attend seminars, lectures and conferences, which are decided features of Nigerian public life?
Of course, it is a different matter whether the proposals and insights thrown up at these events and collated in communiques ever impact on public policy or not. That notwithstanding, they stand out as markers of robust civil activity and of elite attempts, even if unsuccessful, to shape the contours of public policy.
Two such occasions are the Distinguished Public Lecture, delivered at the University of Ibadan last Friday by Toyin Falola, who is the Jacob and Francis Sanger Mossiker Chair in the Humanities at the University of Texas at Austin, and another one on social media at the Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research monthly seminar with a lead presentation by Nosa Owens- Ibie, professor of mass communication at Caleb University, Lagos.
As the opening quote suggests, Falola’s lecture was devoted to making a case for incorporating into mainstream academic discourse and research the hitherto marginalised indigenous knowledge systems, which he describes as “ritual archives”. The distinguished historian argued that the colonial archives, upon which the reconstruction of our history as a people is based, cover a mere 65 years coinciding with the period of formal colonisation. In contrast, however, our history and cultural repertoire between the Stone Age and the onset of colonial rule have been almost totally ignored, because there are hardly any written texts about them.
Falola insists that the challenge is how to recover the vast treasure of mainly oral literature and ritual performances expressed in proverbs, songs, poetry, philosophies and festivals that define our people. One advantage of this mission of cultural recovery and restitution is that they will constitute knowledge systems with which Nigeria and the rest of Africa can begin to interrogate received theories and ways of thinking, packaged as universal philosophy. In other words, our scholars can no longer afford to be consumers of so-called expert knowledge validated by the prestige of elite universities in the west. On the contrary, they should employ “ritual archives” to throw up theories and philosophies for others to use. Doing this, will, of course, involve serial turf battles with those who currently control the knowledge industry as well as define what is academically sound.
Let me illustrate Falola’s ideas with reference to the status of Chinese science and technology, which were once derided by the west as crude and substandard. As China, leaning on its indigenous knowledge system and discerning adaptations from the west, emerged as an economic powerhouse, the west, in recent years, has been forced to learn from Chinese developmental models. In other words, a country or civilisation is not respected or could not really grow as long as it is an avid consumer of knowledge from other climes. It is only when external models are thoughtfully examined in the light of indigenous perspectives that they can lead to genuine development. Hence, what we have here goes beyond the familiar plea to pay attention to indigenous science, to underline how inclusive and genuine developments are bound up with the recovery of a once derided cultural substructure.
In this connection, Falola draws attention to current events in South Africa that have established research and institutional frameworks on indigenous knowledge systems, which include important matters such as bio economy – defined as African traditional medicine – food security, technology, nutraceuticals, health and cosmetics. Others include alternative and clean sources of energy, environmental management, technology innovation, as well as methods of learning and classifications based on indigenous knowledge systems. Seen in this perspective, the advocacy for reframing the debate on inclusive development by leaning on indigenous knowledge turns out to be not an idle or rarefied academic excursion, but a quest for redefining national priorities by showing the limitations of received notions and systems of thought. Turning this into policy will, of course, involve a wider debate on the precise ways in which Nigeria can begin to recapture its lost ‘ritual archives’, as well as incorporate lessons from other countries and cultures that have made substantial progress in this area.
The seminar on social media addressed itself to the various ways in which outlets, such as Facebook,YouTube, WhatsApp, Twitter, LinkedIn, among others, are rapidly transforming our social universe and democratic participation. Interestingly, the seminar coincided with the hosting in Lagos of a social media week. Owens-Ibie noted correctly that the number of internet users in Nigeria, put at almost 80 million, is higher than the entire population of the United Kingdom and France. Also, it is the highest in Africa and the 8th highest in the world. That is probably why so much controversy was generated when Senator Bala Ibin N’allah proposed a ‘Frivolous Partitions and Other Matters Connected Therewith Bill’, subsequently nicknamed the antisocial media bill. Happily, wise counsel prevailed and the proposed bill was shelved.
Obviously, the growing traffic of conversation on social media is a major force for empowerment, civic engagement and democratic participation. As many will recall, since the 2011 elections, social media have played important roles in the shape and fortunes of the presidential elections, most notably, in 2015 where they became an instrument of youth mobilisation. For the same reason, however, the ruling All Progressives Congress may pay a heavy price if it fails to live up to the expectations aroused on social media during its campaign. One of the important issues raised in Owen-Ibie’s exposition is the way in which social media are alternately empowering a growing segment of the population, while disempowering others.
In other words, Nigeria will only begin to reap the dividends of enhanced participation when it overcomes pronounced obstacles to inclusive Internet led development. According to the scholar, in order to overcome the problems associated with a marginalised new minority, the country must, among other things, come up with a “technology plan” to incorporate digital and media literacy into education.
Other policy suggestions made in the paper include the building of an educational environment to address issues of evolving language on social media, remedying issues of costs as determinants of access for increased participation, enhancing engagement and social activism online, as well as ensuring that access to public information is made easier at all levels of governance. Equally important is the domestication of the Freedom of Information Act to effectively counter rumour propagation online, and increasing the synergy between old and new media.
In fact, the two public events generated rich policy insights in respect of agenda building on inclusive development. Policymakers would do well to pay attention to the wealth of submissions at these and similar conversations.
